Why not? No one needs an excuse.
Comment on Federal judge again strikes down California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 rounds
breadsmasher@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Why would anyone need more than 10 rounds in a magazine for an assault rifle? “self defense”?
Blamemeta@lemm.ee 1 year ago
breadsmasher@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yes. Arm everyone. No excuses. Give everyone rifles with large magazines. What could possibly go wrong in the only country where things regularly go wrong
PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Exactly! What could go wrong?
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens
FireTower@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Self defense is but one reason to own a rifle. I’d suggest that people are entitled to own the most apt means of self preservation. And it seems that in the era of intermediate cartridges the most pragmatic sum for a rifle to hold is usually 30 rounds beyond that magazine start to become a hindrance. In most cases people might not use even all ten rounds. Having the additional capacity doesn’t prohibit one from using fewer rounds, but having only 10 does inhibit you from using more than 10 rounds.
Another reason for ownership of rifles is in common defense as alluded to in the 2A by the “Necessary to the security of a free State”. The standard on the global stage for an intermediate cartridge rifle is also 30 rounds of capacity. Meaning most threats to the security of our state would have three times the capacity of a 10 rd magazine.
Polarsailor@kbin.social 1 year ago
breadsmasher@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Californians need more than 10 rounds because of hog hunters in florida?
Polarsailor@kbin.social 1 year ago
I don't believe you're asking in good faith or would find any reason presented as valid, and I'm not going to play whack-a-mole or engage beyond this reply.
Locality isn't really relevant in terms of federal constitutionality. Moreover, it's not wise to demand demonstration of a need to justify a right at the level of an individual. Why do you need to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures? One could argue that we'd be a lot safer if the cops could shake everyone down and catch the baddies early? Why do you need to be secure against cruel and unusual punishment? One could arguent that we'd be a lot safer if there was more gruesome public deterrence. Why do you need to be able to freely speak your mind in public? So on and so forth. Individual need is not the fulcrum.
I get it though, you don't like this one right in particular, so you'll want to wiggle about how it's different or outdated or misapplied as to individuals. I'm going to assume your life is fairly stable and secure, based on your original question. Good for you. But don't assume everyone has your privilege, and try to appreciate that this is a large nation with a great many ways of life and circumstances that are outside your personal experience.
I hope we all get to keep all of our rights, as they keep us, by virtue of their nature and our nature. As to need, I sure hope you never have to individually assert any of your rights because you have an acute need, but if you do, I hope you stil enjoy whichever right you need in that moment and haven't pissed it away.
random65837@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Why do you feel people must justify “need”? Aside from the PITA at a range or sporting use which is by far the majority of when people are using them, do you “need” your gas tank to hold whatvit does? Why not hold 5gals and you can simply fill itnup all the time? What does that acomplish other than being a pain in the ass?
Also, AR’s aren’t “assault rifles”. An M16 is, an M4 is, just like your initial argument these are things people say that (sorry), dont know what they’re talkig about.
PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Why do you feel people must justify “need”?
Because people and children are dying from firearm related deaths all the fucking time in this country. Your rights end where another’s nose begins.
random65837@lemmy.world 1 year ago
LOL! Sure lunatic. So the criminals that by definition dont follow the law and have no issues comiting murder, will swap those 30rd mags for 10’s becuase those are legal right? Makes no difference that its a felony for them to be in possession of a firearm is already a crime, the mag limit… That’ll stop them right?
You’re hilarious. I’ll bet speed limits and DUI laws stop people too right? The ol’ gotta do “something” even when its proven not to work mindset huh?
Plan your next vacation to reality.
breadsmasher@lemmy.world 1 year ago
smoothbrain take right here
JingJang@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Here are a few:
Because it’s our right. (I know you know this but it’s still the first reason).
Because when recreationally shooting a gun like this it’s more enjoyable to have larger capacities.
Number 1 again.
PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 year ago
The 2nd amendment says nothing about regulation of magazines.
So your personal enjoyment is more important than the lives of children?
FireTower@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Arms as mentioned in the 2A encompasses more than just firearms. It also includes things the magazines, tasers, and armor.
Per US SC Caetano v. Massachusetts “”[w]eapo[n] of offence" or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584
PizzaMan@lemmy.world 1 year ago
So any weapon that can be carried is covered by the second amendment is what you’re saying?